Saving a Project--and the Coastline : A proposed Disney theme park in Long Beach becomes a hot political potato

Disney is a magic name in Southern California, and it has political clout to match. Lately the Walt Disney Co. has been lobbying hard in Sacramento for a change in coastal protection laws that it says is essential for it to move forward with DisneySea, a proposed $2.8-billion theme park in Long Beach. It may be appropriate to grant Disney its wish--but only if a bill can be crafted so as not to erode the state’s historic Coastal Act.

After announcing plans for the ocean-themed park last year, Disney hit a wall when the Coastal Commission staff said Disney’s proposal to fill 250 acres of shallow harbor to accommodate the project would not be allowable under current law. The firm subsequently found itself a powerful author--Senate Minority Leader Ken Maddy (R-Fresno)--to carry legislation. The bill receives its first hearing today in a Senate committee.

Maddy’s bill would bring Disney’s project under a legal definition making it eligible for fill permits under the Coastal Act. Under current law, only a small list of projects, such as shipping, fishing and port facilities, are allowed to use landfill along the coast. The Coastal Commission staff maintains that the amusement park portions of DisneySea do not qualify because they do not have to be built on the ocean, like a boat dock, but could as easily be built in Fresno as Long Beach.

Maybe. But the Legislature may wish to view “Port Disney” in a broader context. If built, this recreational and educational facility could help revitalize the city of Long Beach and boost tourism in the region. It also could bring substantial income to the state’s coffers. Currently, the run-down Long Beach port, long designated as a major tourist area, has fallen short of expectations, despite attractions like the Queen Mary and the Spruce Goose.

Ideally, this dispute would be better handled at the Coastal Commission level: By tampering with the Coastal Act, the Legislature could open the door to other, more questionable, projects that want such permits. That’s an issue that must be aired in upcoming hearings. For now, it would better to grant Disney an outright exception to the Coastal Act than--as proposed by Disney--to add language to the Act suggesting an existing “uncertainty” in the law about what projects are eligible for fill permits. That could prove a Pandora’s box.

If precisely written, Disney’s bill could keep the door open to a proposal that would still have to face all the usual regulatory and environmental reviews. And if in the end it passes muster, DisneySea could help the state’s economy and help rescue Long Beach--without sinking the all-important Coastal Act.